Science > Physics > Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John C. Polasek" |
| Date: |
15 Mar 2005 07:33:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:27:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:07:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
k = 2 Gm/rc^2 (after reinserting the constants G and c^2)
Then, the red shift is given by, z = \exp(-\phi) - 1.
And so, finally you are in a position to respond directly with numbers
to settle the theme of this thread namely,
The only reason I did your work for you is that (1) I was curious
as to the solution, and (2) someone else (other than you) might have
found it interesting. Next time, do your own work.
Congratulations on the algebra that produced the admirably terse
expression for z.
But you stopped short.
No, I didn't stop short. It's all there. If you have some problem
utilizing it, go work on it yourself. Use your head for something
besides storing hot air.
Numbers talk. You have to put up numbers, or go away.
I wouldn't think of trying to work your weird unitless algebra where
you recklessly combine pressure (or energy density and mass density}:
"dP/dr = -(P + \rho)"
probably in that land where c = 1 (but I can't work without honest
units and c isn't 1 and could fix your rho).
..
It's your algebra and you must realize how miserably inept you look,
when after all the algebra and all the catcalling, when it's time to
step up to the bar and be a man, you find you are not able to put
numbers to your precious expression.
Numbers talk. There are just two and it's up to you to tell us what
they are. No amount of algebrazation can convince like two answers for
redshift at earth and inside earth (see title of thread).
Isn't relativity wonderful? One's heart goes out to the unwashed.
Two answers please.
Mr. Dual Space
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
..
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
16 Mar 2005 02:58:58 PM |
|
|
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:27:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:07:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
k = 2 Gm/rc^2 (after reinserting the constants G and c^2)
Then, the red shift is given by, z = \exp(-\phi) - 1.
And so, finally you are in a position to respond directly with numbers
to settle the theme of this thread namely,
The only reason I did your work for you is that (1) I was curious
as to the solution, and (2) someone else (other than you) might have
found it interesting. Next time, do your own work.
Congratulations on the algebra that produced the admirably terse
expression for z.
But you stopped short.
No, I didn't stop short. It's all there. If you have some problem
utilizing it, go work on it yourself. Use your head for something
besides storing hot air.
Numbers talk. You have to put up numbers, or go away.
Buy a calculator and learn to use it. Better yet, buy a textbook
on general relativity and a calculator. Then, everyone else won't
have to derive the results for you and put up with having you try
to misconstrue what they've posted into a form that fits your
canned reply.
[...]
It's your algebra and you must realize how miserably inept you look,
If you're concerned about appearance, take a poll. You might
be rudely awakened.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
16 Mar 2005 03:49:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:58:58 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:27:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:07:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
k = 2 Gm/rc^2 (after reinserting the constants G and c^2)
Then, the red shift is given by, z = \exp(-\phi) - 1.
Please produce the redshift at earth and at center.
And so, finally you are in a position to respond directly with numbers
to settle the theme of this thread namely,
The only reason I did your work for you is that (1) I was curious
as to the solution, and (2) someone else (other than you) might have
found it interesting. Next time, do your own work.
I already gave the two values for z in my post of 3/14 10:39AM. Feel
free to crib and try to shoot for those same values. If you get
different values we can argue.
Otherwise no one can possibly compute your stuff with that mass and
energy density goulash and your enigmatic phi and exponent thereof, so
it's up to you.
I don't need your kind of help to solve this simple problem but I
surely would be interested to see how a real whiz bang does it. You
are one of those parlor physicists who care neither for units nor
numbers and consequently cannot interact with the real world.
Numbers talk. You have to put up numbers, or go away.
Buy a calculator and learn to use it. Better yet, buy a textbook
on general relativity and a calculator. Then, everyone else won't
have to derive the results for you and put up with having you try
to misconstrue what they've posted into a form that fits your
canned reply.
I would not buy a used car from you. I solved the problem two days ago
and you are still fulminating with your misdirected contumely. You are
a fake and your cover has been blown.
John Polasek
If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
16 Mar 2005 10:44:51 PM |
|
|
John C. Polasek:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:58:58 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:27:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:07:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
k = 2 Gm/rc^2 (after reinserting the constants G and c^2)
Then, the red shift is given by, z = \exp(-\phi) - 1.
Please produce the redshift at earth and at center.
I did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
17 Mar 2005 08:20:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:44:51 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:58:58 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:27:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
John C. Polasek:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:07:53 GMT,
(Bilge) wrote:
k = 2 Gm/rc^2 (after reinserting the constants G and c^2)
Then, the red shift is given by, z = \exp(-\phi) - 1.
Please produce the redshift at earth and at center.
I did.
I guess it depends on what YOU mean by number. I can't see a number.
Your algebra is dishonest. It can't work because the operands are not
homogeneous and so you must be holding out some hidden variables which
obviously puts the burden on you to unbundle.
You are one of those who prate piously of falsifiability and here you
have a perfect opportunity to produce a number that can be argued and
you continue your pharisaical ways of seeking to indict your
challenger.
..
The fact is you don't know how to produce a number. And, in the end, z
isn't the exp of anything and neither is the log of z.
John Polasek
If you have something to say write an equation.
If you believe in the equation give some numerical examples. !!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
17 Mar 2005 11:28:59 AM |
|
|
John C. Polasek:
I guess it depends on what YOU mean by number. I can't see a number.
Ypu have the solution. Go buy a calculator and punch in your own
numbers. I already did the hard part for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ilja Schmelzer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
18 Mar 2005 04:15:57 AM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> schrieb
Numbers talk. You have to put up numbers, or go away.
You need some numbers?
No problem. Here you have some numbers:
78231913900579595795927202730296402460182028618601761
2167602206052260705790252576260502020220020025002080802
2462821216515176587539351395651513326291429512995876576
SCNR,
Ilja
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
18 Mar 2005 10:08:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:15:57 +0100, "Ilja Schmelzer"
<q6867901@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> schrieb
Numbers talk. You have to put up numbers, or go away.
You need some numbers?
No problem. Here you have some numbers:
78231913900579595795927202730296402460182028618601761
2167602206052260705790252576260502020220020025002080802
2462821216515176587539351395651513326291429512995876576
SCNR,
Ilja
It's a start.
But maybe we should tell Bilge that this is not the actual answer. He
is probably trying to work it into his equations.
I take it you think we are not entitled to real answers instead of all
that windy persiflage.
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't Earth's surface clock slower then one at Earth's Centre? |
19 Mar 2005 11:59:18 AM |
|
|
John C. Polasek:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:15:57 +0100, "Ilja Schmelzer"
<q6867901@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> schrieb
Numbers talk. You have to put up numbers, or go away.
You need some numbers?
No problem. Here you have some numbers:
78231913900579595795927202730296402460182028618601761
2167602206052260705790252576260502020220020025002080802
2462821216515176587539351395651513326291429512995876576
SCNR,
Ilja
It's a start.
But maybe we should tell Bilge that this is not the actual answer. He
is probably trying to work it into his equations.
I take it you think we are not entitled to real answers instead of all
that windy persiflage.
This is usenet, not a consulting firm. You aren't entitled to
anything. Did you pay for a numerical result? If so, I haven't
received a check yet.
On the other hand, you make a lot of claims for having a new
theory of space and time. However, you couldn't obtain the
expression for the redshift from the old theory of space and
time or even punch numbers into a calculator once I derived it
for you. You aren't doing a very good job of promoting your
theory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
